I know this is going to sound crazy, and it is bound to offend a lot of people, but President Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Not yet, anyways. I believe President Obama is doing a lot of good for this country, and I think that having him in the White House has done a great deal to reform the image of the US around the world. However, the Nobel Peace Prize is not something he deserves at this time.
Rather than accept the prize, I think it would be awe inspiring for President Obama to go to Norway and decline the prize, to give a speech about the meaning of the prize, and to show the world that he cannot be bought with flattery. Sure, there are a lot of die-hard fans who think he should accept any prize that is being offered. But a man's true value cannot be captured in an award. I think that he could not possibly lose the support of the people on the left for turning down the prize. But even better, I think he would generate a great deal of respect and admiration from many people on the right. Imagine how devastating it would be to conservative fundamentalists if he rejected the prize. He could make real inroads with conservative America just by doing this little thing. He would also generate even more admiration and respect around the world.
It would be a real win for President Obama if he turned down this prize.
Michael Moore was right this time, that the President needs to earn the prize. No one wishes more than I that this President, for whose election I and so many others fought so hard, who has already accomplished much good, was already deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope he, or even any US president, will deserve it some day. But today, he just doesn't yet. We're still occupying Iraq. We're escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're still supporting hawkish, counterproductive parties in Israel. We can't even join the rest of the world in vehemently condemning a military coup in Honduras. Alas, we have a very long way to go before any US president deserves this prize.
The best thing would be for him to respectfully decline the prize. If they award him it again after his presidency is over, lets hope it will be fully justified.
I wonder at what point the Republican Party will begin to see themselves as part of the solution to American's problems rather than a dedicated opposition to anything associated with Barack Obama. Michael Steele's statement on the Nobel Peace Prize is an excellent example of what a right-wing talking head thinks is a good idea when pitching this week's cable or radio show. It is not reflective of the values and tone I associate with the long-time, dedicated Republican Party members I know. Those Republicans have been increasing set loose to fend for themselves in a war of words.
The bitter, angry tone of criticism against the President has me, frankly, worried. At what point do the comments of Rush Limbaugh stop being "entertainment" or even "political commentary," and venture into "fighting words" prohibited by Supreme Court challenges in the past? If something, God forbid, were to ever happen to the President, will we be able to look back at the shrill tone of the right and say it incited violence? And if it does incite violence, who is responsible? Does that tone have its roots in criticism of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? Or is there something more irrational at work here?
As I have listened to, watched, and read coverage of the award, one point seems to be lost: the President did not nominate himself for the award, campaign for it, or encourage the Nobel committee. In other words, if the Nobel Prize committee overlooked other worthy causes or hurt the feelings of some groups, the bad guy here is not Obama. He is as surprised as anyone that he was given it. He acknowledged that he feels humbled to be in the company of great people, who have done more than he has. His good sense in recognizing the obvious shows his instincts and read of the American people is still on target.
The right-wing racist insults (his award is part of an "affirmative action" quota?!) and associations of Obama with terrorist groups (simply because he exists) is dangerously out of step with most of America. But should a violent splinter group take the call to hate Obama to an extreme, I wonder if Morris Dees can file a lawsuit on behalf of the American people to silence the poisonous cheerleaders. Better yet, I wonder if we can do something ourselves, RIGHT NOW, to take away the cheerleaders' megaphones.
Don't the haters need internet service providers? Don't they depend on advertisers? Who books them to speak at public venues, built by tax-payer dollars (in many cases)? We all know that a huge number of Americans support Obama, which is why he was able to out-fundraise all previous Republican candidates. I think the real future of mobilizing these supporters, who responded in huge numbers through sites like this one, lies in on-line action, like digital boycotts, email campaigns to advertisers, and electronic protests to local officials about the use of public space to encourage hate, etc.
Obviously, as someone posting on the Organizing for America web site, I have supported Obama in the past and do now as well. But I really object to the idea that it is not possible to dislike the President without being irrationally angry at the same time. At the risk of helping the Republican Party recover from its 2008 defeat and strengthening it for 2012, I would like to be part of a campaign to restore rationality to political debate. I want my parents, life-long Republicans, to have some viable option in voting their beliefs in the future--and not to be at the mercy of the likes of Joe Wilson. I want to be able to say that I saw where this kind of "debate" was going and tried to prevent the bitterness from spinning out of control.
It is an honor to be nominated let alone win the Nobel Peace Prize. Americans have something to be prideful of because our President was nominated and won! The reasons for the committee's choice are not ours to debate. The nobel prize has been around for years and is a non-partisan award. Throughout the world in the past few years, Americans would travel abroad and not admit to their citizenship. The world hated Americans. Now, our country is being viewed at peace makers and not destroyers. It is something we should hold our head up high in pride.
Already this morning, two hours after the announcement, I was on a social game website and the argument and slander was all over the place. Judging the inaccuracy of the committee's decision and why after nine months in office, President Obama had not changed much. Few things happen overnight. If change is to occur in this struggling economy, it needs to be well planned. President Obama has the framework of many changes ready to enact if Congress would work with him. We have to remember that the President didn't nominate himself for this honor. He was recognized for his leadership in trying to create peaceful relations with all people.
As I read the -- surprised and surprising -- reactions to Pres. Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, I am reminded of something that happened ten years or so ago, when my father was still alive. I was complaining about one thing or another that then-Pres. Clinton had done. Dad, who had first voted for FDR and had years later become very embittered by Pres. Nixon -- in other words, he had seen and lived through the best and worst that our nation had to offer -- told me something I'll never forget:
"A leader can't control everything. He has to work with what he's got. So he can't make everything right overnight. And he'll make some mistakes, too; he's only human. But the thing to watch is the direction he's taking us. It might be slower than you'd like, but are things generally headed the right way or not? That's how you judge a leader."
I sometimes believe that if President Obama wiped out all disease, brought peace to our planet, created unlimited energy sources and solved world hunger, I'd see an iReport question asking, "Does Obama Really Care or is he Just Showing Off?"
No matter how much good this man does, no matter how many accolades, he gets slammed by one half of the United States, the half that doesn't just want him to not be President but seems to despise his very existence.
Images accompanying articles about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, such as the one of a black peace dove with an olive branch in his mouth (an actual graphic in a Spanish newspaper) are shocking, but also revealing. Loaded questions from "iReport" on CNN asked, "Does Obama Deserve it?" and articles like "Now Obama Needs to Earn It" (and that was written by a supporter) shows just how deeply divided our world is about this man, for reasons of envy and racism.
Doesn't the world understand, President Obama was awarded this prize for to setting the tone for world peace, for TRYING to bring the world together to ultimately then accomplish levels of peace heretofore not known. It is in the act of TRYING that we are measured, not accomplishing. What have you done, lately, ask yourself, to TRY to bring peace to this world?
If the Nobel Peace Prize was only awarded for when people actually brought peace to this planet (as was seriously suggested by one person who said Obama should give the prize back until he's accomplished world peace), no one would ever win such a prize.
We need to encourage every individual who has the tenacity and the vision to stand up and say we won't take it anymore, we won't accept the status quo of hatred and war. President Obama is just such a person and that's why he was awarded this prize. This award is not based on what he might do in the future, it's based on what he has done, set the stage for our world to respect one another, the first prelude to peace. He's tried to bring our world together. And the resistance to that only proves how noble the trying is.
Let's give him a chance now to make the dream of a more peaceful world a reality and let us for a moment, put aside our hate, because by doing so, it is our only chance at peace.
Former Finnish president of Finland and Nobel Price winner
Mr. Martti Ahtisaari : "I hope that the new president of the
United States, who will be sworn in next month, will give
high priority to the Middle East conflict during his first year
in office."
Great news: Co founder of Internet, Vint Cerf, and all 2008 US Nobel Laureates in Science endorse Obama
We've all been warned that Barack Obama has some suspicious friends. Well, you better add Vint Cerf, cofounder of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, and the 2008 Nobel laureates in Science to that list, because they just endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate.
In a YouTube video, Vint Cerf explains why he's voting for Barack Obama by pointing out the importance of net neutrality and why Obama's views on the subject are so important.
The McCain campaign claims Barack Obama is a pal of Bill Ayers, and therefore is himself a bomb-throwing radical. Sarah Palin points out she read this in the New York Times. Perhaps she is doing that to refute the perception she doesn't read newspapers. However, she did not read the article carefully because it demonstrates that Akers and Obama only “crossed paths” while working to bring money to Chicago schools and as neighbors in Hyde Park.
The truth is, Barack Obama does not look to Bill Ayers for advice. It is hard to imagine why would Obama consult Ayers when his advisors and supporters include Nobel Prize winners (62 scientists in a recent public letter), investors and business people (such as Warren Buffett), former SEC chairs, professional economists, admirals, generals, and an overwhelming majority of the soldiers in Iraq who have made political donations. About 4 million Americans have contributed financially to his presidential campaign. So why do McCain/Palin want to associate Obama and Ayers? Because they have nothing of more substance to say to the American people.
Unrepentant and Unbreakable
The Time for Mordechai Vanunu is Now
By RANNIE AMIRI
As the world awaits the announcement of this year’s recipient(s) of the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no doubt 2008 has been witness to a call to war.
The pressure exerted by Israel in goading the United States to attack Iran has been relentless, and thankfully, resisted up to now. In this context, is there any better person to receive the Peace Prize than the man who initially exposed the Middle East’s first—and only—nuclear power over two decades ago?
After divulging pictures related to Israel’s clandestine atomic stockpile during a 1986 interview with The Sunday Times, Mordechai Vanunu was lured back to Israel by the Mossad and subsequently spent the next 18 years in prison (11 of them in solitary confinement) before being released in 2004........
"Man convicted of hate crime for accosting Wiesel"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080722/ap_on_re_us/wiesel_accosted
What a sad story. Who knows the date of when Elie was on campus, right off hand?
Lisa
Top Nobel Prize winning economists think Senator Obama is the best choice to be President of the United States because of his economic plan. Watch the video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk8XpLHG_4A
I greatly admire Al Gore and would be one of the first to support a Gore run for president. I dont think Nobel Prize winner uber-world citizen Gore will run in this race but I am pretty interested in which candidate will win his endorsement and when he will make the announcement. I dont see Gore endorsing Hillary. An endorsement of Edwards is possible and reasonable (no big deal-Edwards is my second favorite for the nomination).
Pretty much everything I had planned to talk about concerning the gore endorsement is mentioned in this short piece: http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/12/noam-scheiber-half-baked-gore-speculation.aspx
It is probably time to start bugging Gore about getting behind Obama and I have seen quite a few web tools around set up to make communication from the public easy to do. Will post links later
Al Gore's Nobel Prize has us all wondering who he'll endorse, something Marc Ambinder says is likely to happen in December. My two cents: If at that point it looks like Obama has some chance of winning the nomination, it'll be Obama. I say that for the following reasons: 1.) Obama has the most credible claim to being a transformative figure, something Gore (rightly) fancies himself, too. 2.) Obama, like Gore, got the war right from the get-go. 3.) Hillary, in addition to coming up short on points one and two, has long been a rival of Gore's, and vice versa.
And 4.) Crass politics. Consider the following scenarios: a.) If Gore endorses Obama and Obama goes on to win, he's a kingmaker, visionary, etc. b.) If Gore endorses Hillary and Hillary goes on to win, what has he proven? That he can affirm the conventional wisdom? Jump on the bandwagon at some late date? c.) If Gore endorses Obama and Hillary wins the nomination, I don't think Gore's lost much. I don't get the sense he wants to be in the inner-circle of another Clinton White House. And, as for the issue he cares most about--global warming--he's the biggest name on the planet. If Hillary becomes president and wants to get something done on the issue, she'd look incredibly petty not turning to Gore in some capacity.
P.S. Check out Ryan Lizza's excellent piece on the Gore and Clinton factions of the party for more on this. (See also this Lizza piece, which foreshadowed the Gore endorsement of Dean in 2003. At that point it was looking more like a Dean-Gore faction than a Gore faction.)
Update: Chris Cillizza's sources tell him it'll either be Obama or Edwards. I still say Obama, but there is this to keep in mind: Joe Trippi, who helped broker the Gore endorsement for Dean four years ago, is now Edwards's chief strategist. Given how that turned out, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But, at the very least, Trippi probably has Gore's cell number...
CityLife article about the Sept. 11 panel, "From Apartheid to Darfur: Africa's Struggle Against Disdain," a Black Mountain Institute event that drew together several African authors. CLICK HERE TO READ: How do you fix Africa? Step one: Stop trying to fix AfricaOfficial Event Announcement with Panel BiosAbout Wole SoyinkaAbout Chimamanda Ngozi AdichieAbout Chenjerai Hove About Alexandra FullerAbout Chris Abani
Click here to read the original blog announcing the panel event.____________________________________________________________
Lisa Beyer
Precinct Deputy Captain in Las Vegas Precinct 6475
Why I Support Barack Obama for PresidentMYBO ProfileMYBO BlogMySpaceMySpace BlogFacebookLinkedIn ProfileSouthern Nevada for Obama TestimonialSouthern Nevada for Obama - A Grassroots Campaign Effort
Did you know...
On January 19, 2008, Nevada will be the 2nd state in the nation to caucus for a presidential nominee!
Democrats will meet at their designated sites at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 19, 2008NV Democratic Caucus FAQsClark County, NV Residents: Find Your Precinct Here
